I have warned students and my own kids about refraining from posting derogatory or self-deprecating posts and photos on places such as MySpace and Facebook due to just such a possibility. I know that there were reports in the past two years that prospective employers were searching out websites to better define applicants personalities and activities. It does make it seem like there is no place where speech can be truly open and free, but all these websites offer a way to only permit certain people to view posts. I am sure there is a way around this type of block, but when you post something publicly, you may be called on it. While she did it on her own time, on her own computer, she was creating a situation in which the administrator had no public forum to refute the allegations and as such, it was basically what amounts to internet rumormongering. While I support free speech, there is such a thing as responsibility.
While I agree about responsibility, I don't think the school was right in this case to take it upon itself to teach her a lesson--I mean, teach her about responsibility.
And the fact remains that the district administrators DID, in fact, have a way to respond. It could have sent a letter home to parents. It could have sent a press release to the local media. It could have put information up on its website. Indeed, it had more venues to be heard than did Avery.
What next -- punishing kids because of their parents' speech on the internet?
Rhyms with right does bring up a good point. Darren might recall when a local school punished a student because of the student's mother's job. She was a stripper, so the school expelled the student once another faculty member discovered her.
The school, however, ignored how the faculty member actually came across her job.
6 comments:
I have warned students and my own kids about refraining from posting derogatory or self-deprecating posts and photos on places such as MySpace and Facebook due to just such a possibility. I know that there were reports in the past two years that prospective employers were searching out websites to better define applicants personalities and activities. It does make it seem like there is no place where speech can be truly open and free, but all these websites offer a way to only permit certain people to view posts. I am sure there is a way around this type of block, but when you post something publicly, you may be called on it. While she did it on her own time, on her own computer, she was creating a situation in which the administrator had no public forum to refute the allegations and as such, it was basically what amounts to internet rumormongering. While I support free speech, there is such a thing as responsibility.
While I agree about responsibility, I don't think the school was right in this case to take it upon itself to teach her a lesson--I mean, teach her about responsibility.
And the fact remains that the district administrators DID, in fact, have a way to respond. It could have sent a letter home to parents. It could have sent a press release to the local media. It could have put information up on its website. Indeed, it had more venues to be heard than did Avery.
What next -- punishing kids because of their parents' speech on the internet?
Rhyms with right does bring up a good point. Darren might recall when a local school punished a student because of the student's mother's job. She was a stripper, so the school expelled the student once another faculty member discovered her.
The school, however, ignored how the faculty member actually came across her job.
That was a private school. The First Amendment only applies to government.
ya i know. but same type of thing. student being punished for adults behavior, something the student couldnt control.
at least its the same type of thing as what the dude mentioned above.
Post a Comment